argest numbers of
Christian souls find their spiritual food!" (Gladstone to Acton, Nov.,
1869.)

The Catholic Church sees in this movement of Church-Union the complete
disintegration of Protestantism and the open condemnation of its
fundamental principles. Those who are not of the "Fold" will perhaps
resent, but not be astonished at this sweeping statement. We would only
ask them to follow our argument and then judge for themselves.

_Union--and therefore unity--will not and cannot be the result of the
present Inter-Church Movement_. This statement involves a question of
fact and of right. _In facto_.--Let us examine first the question of
fact. Union, as now promoted, is either "_co-operative_" or "_organic_."
_Co-operative union ignores differences of creed or form of worship;
organic union suppresses them or merges them into a neutral mixture_.

Co-operative Union,--as a basis of religious unity affecting the religion
of the individual, can be at once dismissed. For, what _religious_
action,--_i.e._, action prompted and guided by a principle, a religious
doctrine,--is possible without that principle, that doctrine? Moral
action,--and Religion is at the same time the foundation and the highest
expression of the moral order,--pre-supposes immutable and recognized
principles. "The mental attitude defined on paper as 'undenominational,'
Miss M. Fletcher says rightly, has no existence in the human mind. Below
all sustained enthusiasms lie strong convictions."--Therefore to ignore
the directing principles of their various denominations in a common
religious action, and yet to pretend to keep their denominational
identity, involves, on the part of the Churches, an absolute
impossibility. Because doctrine is the very foundation, the "_raison
d'etre_" of intelligent Christian action. Diversity of opinion is bound
to bring, in religious matters, diversity of action; for, to be
consequent one must act according to his belief. Baptism, for instance,
is necessary or not necessary for salvation. On this doctrinal point
will necessarily hinge a diversity of action in the mission field alloted
to this or to that denomination. The position is quite different when
common action is confined to merely social work. But "social service,"
stripped of all its Christian principles and reduced to pure
philanthropy, is not Christianity; it is mere naturalism or neo-paganism.

The great majority of those for whom Christianity i